- The round for which you are tipping
- 3 matches should be Tie Break matches, others should all be SR matches
- TB1 should always be part of the OOP from Day 2 and at least one TB should be part of Day 1 (if there is a two days round), rest is up to the manager
-The person/people TT players are suppossed to send their picks to and the deadline to send picks

The TB matches should be considered to be the most difficult to predict in the schedule

Procedures to determine a winner:

1) The player who has more correct picks is the winner

In the case of a tie in the number of correct picks the winner should be determined by this order:

2) Set Ratios

Player A wins if he has more correct set ratios than player B.
In case there is a tie in the number of correct SRs, you should use the ISR rule method.

3) The ISR rule (Incorrect Picks) => won´t get awarded in matches in which one player retired

SINGLES:

All INCORRECT picks will be compared, and the player with the most incorrect 2-1 picks (as opposed to incorrect 2-0 picks) will win.
That means, if both players picked the incorrect winner, but one player gives a set to the correct winner, he/she will get a point.
Incorrect 2-1 picks will also get rewarded, if one player picked the incorrect winner 2-1 and the other player forgot to pick for that match "no pick"!

Example: Sharapova def. Clijsters 64 63

Player A picked Clijsters 2-0, Player B picked Clijsters 2-1 => Player B gets a ISR point as he/she gave a set to Sharapova (the correct winner).

If your opponent picked the correct winner and you picked the incorrect winner to win 2-1, then you won't get a point.

Example: Sharapova def. Clijsters 64 63

Player A picked Sharapova 2-0, Player B picked Clijsters 2-1 => Player B doesn't get a ISR point as Player A picked the correct winner.

DOUBLES:

Where 2 teams have the same score and same SRs, we look at incorrect 2-1 picks.
Whoever has the most incorrect 2-1 picks win. However, unlike in singles, just because 1 player in a team has the correct winner of that match, it DOES NOT render an incorrect 2-1 pick irrelevant. The correct picks cancel each other out

In this example, the 2 Paszek picks cancel each other out, so we look at the incorrect picks and team A gains an incorrect SR point as we compare the Jankovic picks. Team A would get this point even if their first player had picked Paszek in 3, as both teams will have already been rewarded for correct SRs.

If 1 member of the opposing team gets the correct winner and nobody in the other team does, then only 1 2-1 pick is counted, as again, you compare the picks
In this example, team A gains an incorrect SR point. If the second player in team B had Jankovic in 3, then both teams would have 1 incorrect SR point

If this fails to provide a winner, then the Tie Breaks method is used.

4) Tie Breaks

In case Player A chose the correct winner for the TB1 match while Player B didn´t => Player A wins

In case Player A and Player B chose the correct winner for the TB1 match and only one has the correct Set Ratio for that match, then the player with the correct Set Ratio wins

In case Player A and Player B chose the correct winner for the TB1 match and both have the correct/incorrect Set Ratio for that match, winner should be determined by this order:

Player has 3 set scores in the correct order > Player has 3 set scores in the wrong order >Player has 2 set scores in the correct order > Player has 2 set scores in the wrong order > Player has 1 set score in the right order > Player has 1 set score in the wrong order

If you pick the same score for both sets (e.g. 64 64) and the real score is 64 63 then you get only 1 set score in the right order, only in case that the match score is really 64 64 then you get 2 sets in the right order. The same is for 3-setters. If you pick 64 46 64 and the match score is 64 26 63 then you only get 1 set in the right order.

If you can't find a winner after all this, use the who's closer method:

Example: Sharapova wins a match 6-3 6-3

Player A chose her: 6-0 6-0
Player B chose her: 7-6 7-6

Total number of games in Sharapova match: 6+3+6+3=18
Total number of games in Player A pick: 6+0+6+0=12
Total number of games in Player B pick: 7+6+7+6=26

Player A: |18-12|=6
Player B: |18-26|=8

Player A wins as he is closer to the real score.

If you can´t find a winner after this, take a look at the order of sets:

Example: Sharapova wins a match 36 64 63 (total numbers of games in this match: 28)

Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match but Player A gives a set to the winner and Player B doesn't --> Player A wins

Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match and none or both players gave a set to the winner --->
Go to TB2 (or TB3 if needed) and do the same steps which you did for TB1 before (starting again from Point 4: Tie Breaks)

None of the TBs methods above could produce a winner --> Use the new TB method and check for the correct set scores of the players in matches where both picked the wrong winner
(starting again with TB1 obviously, then TB2 and TB3 if needed)

Player has 2 set scores in the correct order > Player has 2 set scores in the wrong order > Player has 1 set score in the right order > Player has 1 set score in the wrong order

Note: a correct setscore given to the "wrong" player doesn´t count

Example A:

Result: Halep def. Williams 64 63

Player A: Williams 64 63
Player B: Williams 76 75

Player A and B don´t have any correct setscores

Example B:

Result: Halep def. Williams 75 62

Player A: Williams 75 26 62
Player B: Williams 64 36 63

Player A has one correct setscore

If none of the TBs methods could produce a winner, use the old TB method where the player who gave the winner the most games will win. This rule only becomes effective when both players picked the wrong winner of a match.

5) Tournament Countback

In Case everything is tied after the use of all TBs, use Tournament Countback as a manner of untying things:

Where two players have the same score, and cannot be separated by SRs, incorrect 2-1 picks or TBs, countback is used. Countback is based on the WHOLE tournament, and not just the previous round.
If that doesn't separate people, then we do SR countback for the whole tournament, then incorrect 2-1 ISRs for the whole tournament and then if people still aren't separated, we look to the previous round for the opponents' respective scores, then SRs, then incorrect 2-1's (new SR rule) and then, if need be, TBs.

If, after the use of CB everything is still tied:

Where 2 players are tied on score, SRs, incorrect 2-1 SRs, PTS and on countback, matches will be decided by predicting the results of another tournament. the players will then send for R2 of their current tournament AND for the next day's OOP of whichever other tournament is selected. Where possible, the tiebreaker tournament selected should be within a similar timezone to the initial tournament and at a similar level, although as long as things are fair for both participants, this is left largely to the discretion of the manager

Example:

Chris 84 and Meelis are tied in every aspect in their 1st round match in Brisbane. both players then send for 2nd round in Brisbane, but to seperate them, and to decide who goes through, they must send picks for the Shenzhen tournament as well. The manager will make up/copy the OOP for the following day's play in Shenzhen and Chris 84 and Meelis will send for that. assume that Meelis wins on the Shenzhen OOP 5-4.
This means that Meelis advances to 2nd round in Brisbane and Chris 84's 2nd round Brisbane picks are discarded.

5) CB/”Looking Forwards”
In Case everything is tied after the use of the TBs, use tournament Countback (CB) as a manner of untying things.

Where 2 players have the same score, and cannot be separated by SRs, incorrect 2-1 picks (new SR rule) or TBs, countback is used. Countback is based on the WHOLE tournament, and not just the previous round.
If that doesn't separate people, then we do SR countback for the whole tournament, then incorrect 2-1's (new SR rule) for the whole tournament and then if people still aren't separated, we look to the previous round for the opponents' respective scores, then SRs, then incorrect 2-1's (new SR rule) and then, if need be, TBs.

If, after the use of CB everything is still tied make players send for the next round and the one with the best picks will win.

In case you chose the loser for the TB1 match:
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match but Player A gives a set to the winner and Player B doesn't --> Player A wins.
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match and no player gives a set to the winner ---> Use TB2/TB3 and do the same steps.
None of the TBs could produce a winner after using this method --> Use the old TB method where the Player who gives the winner the most games will win.

Could you put this rule like at the top of Tie Breaks so i can remember it

In case you chose the loser for the TB1 match:
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match but Player A gives a set to the winner and Player B doesn't --> Player A wins.
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match and no player gives a set to the winner ---> Use TB2/TB3 and do the same steps.
None of the TBs could produce a winner after using this method --> Use the old TB method where the Player who gives the winner the most games will win.

Could you put this rule like at the top of Tie Breaks so i can remember it

I think it's not really needed and it's very easy to remember so I think it's okay as it is atm

If, after the use of CB everything is still tied: where 2 players are tied on score, SRs, incorrect 2-1 SRs, PTS and on countback, matches will be decided by predicting the results of another tournament. the players will then send for R2 of their current tournament AND for the next day's OOP of whichever other tournament is selected. Where possible, the tiebreaker tournament selected should be within a similar timezone to the initial tournament and at a similar level, although as long as things are fair for both participants, this is left largely to the discretion of the manager. However, a semi-ideal example would be:

Chris 84 and Meelis are tied in every aspect in their rd1 match in Brisbane. both players then send for rd2 in Brisbane, but to seperate them, and to decide who goes through, they must send picks for the Shenzhen tournament as well. the manager will make up/copy the OOP for the following day's play in Shenzhen and Chris 84 and Meelis will send for that. assume that Meelis wins on the Shenzhen OOP 5-4. this means that Meelis advances to rd2 in Brsibane and Chris 84's rd2 Brisbane picks are discarded.

Red part has been added to the new TB rules for 2014! (regarding the correct order of sets)

Quote:

2014 SR/TB Rules.

The TT OOP should have in its contents:

-The Round for which you are tipping;
-3 matches should be Tie Break matches, others should all be SR matches
-The person/people TT players are suppossed to send their picks to and the deadline to send picks.

]The TB matches should be considered to be the most difficult to predict in the schedule.

Procedures to determine a winner:

1) The player who has more correct tips is the victor.
In the case of a tie in the number of correct tips the victor should be determined by this order:

2) Set Ratios
Player A wins if he has more correct set ratios than player B. In case there is a tie in the number of correct SRs, you should use the new SR rule method.

3) The new SR rule (Incorrect Picks)SINGLES:
All INCORRECT picks will be compared, and the player with the most incorrect 2-1 picks (as opposed to incorrect 2-0 picks) will win. That means, if both players picked the incorrect winner, but one player gives a set to the correct winner, he/she will get a point.

Example: Sharapova def. Clijsters 64 63

Player A picked Clijsters 2-0, Player B picked Clijsters 2-1 => Player B gets a point as he/she gave a set to Sharapova (the correct winner).

If your opponent picked the correct winner and you picked the incorrect winner to win 2-1, then you won't get a point.

Example: Sharapova def. Clijsters 64 63

Player A picked Sharapova 2-0, Player B picked Clijsters 2-1 => Player B doesn't get a point as Player A picked the correct winner.

DOUBLES:Where 2 teams have the same score and same SRs, we look at incorrect 2-1 picks. Whoever has the most incorrect 2-1 picks win. However, unlike in singles, just because 1 player in a team has the correct winner of that match, it DOES NOT render an incorrect 2-1 pick irrelevant. The correct picks cancel each other out.

Example: Paszek def. Jankovic 6-3 6-4
Team 1's picks - Paszek 6-3 6-4 Jankovic 3-6 6-3 6-4
Team 2's picks - Paszek 6-3 6-4 Jankovic 6-3 6-4
- In this example, the 2 Paszek picks cancel each other out, so we look at the incorrect picks and team 1 gains an incorrect SR point as we compare the Jankovic picks. Team 1 would get this point even if their first player had picked Paszek in 3, as both teams will have already been rewarded for correct SRs.

If 1 member of the opposing team gets the correct winner and nobody in the other team does, then only 1 2-1 pick is counted, as again, you compare the picks.
Example: Paszek def. Jankovic 6-3 6-4
Team 1's picks - Jankovic 6-3 3-6 6-4 Jankovic 3-6 6-3 6-4
Team 2's picks - Paszek 6-3 6-4 Jankovic 6-3 6-4
- In this example, team 1 gains 1 incorrect SR point. If the second player in team 2 had Jankovic in 3, then both teams would have 1 incorrect SR point

- The thing to be remembered is that the better picks should be paired off against each other:
Example: Team 1 picks Paszek 6-3 6-4 Jankovic 6-3 6-4
Team 2 picks Jankovic 3-6 6-3 6-4 Jankovic 6-3 6-4
- The better picks are by the first players in each team. team 2's Jankovic 2-1 is irrelevant as it is compared with team 1's Paszek pick. Then the jankovic 2-0 picks cancel each other out.

If this fails to provide a winner, then the Tie Breaks method is used.

4) Tie Breaks
In case Player A and Player B chose the correct winner for the TB1 match and both have the correct/incorrect Set Ratio for that match, winner should be determined by this order:

Player has 3 set scores in the correct order > Player has 3 set scores in the wrong order > Player has 2 set scores in the correct order > Player has 2 set scores in the wrong order > Player has 1 set score in the right order > Player has 1 set score in the wrong order.

If you pick the same score for both sets (e.g. 64 64) and the real score is 64 63 then you get only 1 set score in the right order, only in case that the match score is really 64 64 then you get 2 sets in the right order. The same is for 3-setters. If you pick 64 46 64 and the match score is 64 26 63 then you only get 1 set in the right order.

If you can't find a winner after all this, use the who's closer method:

Example: Sharapova wins a match 6-3 6-3

Player A chose her: 6-0 6-0
Player B chose her: 7-6 7-6

Total number of games in Sharapova match: 6+3+6+3=18
Total number of games in Player A pick: 6+0+6+0=12
Total number of games in Player B pick: 7+6+7+6=26

Player A: |18-12|=6
Player B: |18-26|=8

Player A wins as he is closer to the real score.

If you can´t find a winner after this, take a look at the order of sets.

Example: Sharapova wins a match 36 64 63 (total numbers of games in this match: 28)

In case you chose the loser for the TB1 match:
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match but Player A gives a set to the winner and Player B doesn't --> Player A wins.
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match and both player gave a set to the winner ---> Use TB2/TB3 and do the same steps.
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match and no player gives a set to the winner ---> Use TB2/TB3 and do the same steps.
None of the TBs could produce a winner after using this method --> Use the old TB method where the Player who gives the winner the most games will win.

5) CB/”Looking Forwards”
In Case everything is tied after the use of the TBs, use tournament Countback (CB) as a manner of untying things.

Where 2 players have the same score, and cannot be separated by SRs, incorrect 2-1 picks (new SR rule) or TBs, countback is used. Countback is based on the WHOLE tournament, and not just the previous round.
If that doesn't separate people, then we do SR countback for the whole tournament, then incorrect 2-1's (new SR rule) for the whole tournament and then if people still aren't separated, we look to the previous round for the opponents' respective scores, then SRs, then incorrect 2-1's (new SR rule) and then, if need be, TBs.

If, after the use of CB everything is still tied: where 2 players are tied on score, SRs, incorrect 2-1 SRs, PTS and on countback, matches will be decided by predicting the results of another tournament. the players will then send for R2 of their current tournament AND for the next day's OOP of whichever other tournament is selected. Where possible, the tiebreaker tournament selected should be within a similar timezone to the initial tournament and at a similar level, although as long as things are fair for both participants, this is left largely to the discretion of the manager. However, a semi-ideal example would be:

Chris 84 and Meelis are tied in every aspect in their rd1 match in Brisbane. both players then send for rd2 in Brisbane, but to seperate them, and to decide who goes through, they must send picks for the Shenzhen tournament as well. the manager will make up/copy the OOP for the following day's play in Shenzhen and Chris 84 and Meelis will send for that. assume that Meelis wins on the Shenzhen OOP 5-4. this means that Meelis advances to rd2 in Brsibane and Chris 84's rd2 Brisbane picks are discarded.

Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match but Player A gives a set to the winner and Player B doesn't --> Player A wins.
Player A and Player B chose the loser of the TB1 match and none or both players give a set to the winner ---> Use TB2 (or TB3 if needed) and do the same steps.

None of the TBs methods could produce a winner --> Use the old TB method where the player who gave the winner the most games will win. This rule only becomes effective when both players picked the wrong winner of a match.

I added the blue part to the TB rules to avoid any confusion here in future!